In my opinion, "poor" $200k people paying for carshousecottage boatsskiingandothertoys are not the problem real problem but the pawns. The real problem lies above $500k income plus assets where lies 40 percent of the wealth and arguably 100 percent of the power.

So, if there is no fear as you claim, they why were there so many excessive numbers of arrests?

Fear had little to do with the arrests; the rich were safe at home and not threatened by the protests, peaceful or otherwise. In all seriousness it's not like the protesters really had a chance to stop the G20 meetings in Canada. The police are too strong and most Canadians are indifferent to the protesters stopping the G20 meetings.

There's obviously a fear of disorder and the uncertainty that comes with it that's bad for business but I don't think there's a whole lot of fear of personal injury or loss on the part of the wealthy yet. With increasing inequality that might change but I'd suggest it's more likely to change in such a way that the wealthy become more concerned about theft and kidnapping rather than about mobs burning down their house. The tendency seems to be for riots by the poor to happen where the poor live rather than reaching the neighbourhoods of the well-off.

Roscoe, you have absolutely no idea of what systemic racism, denial of opportunity and general belitteling can do to a community, especially their youth. For many FN communities in Canada it comes down to fighting gang influence, substance abuse and/or suicide. I'd rather see riots than what we see with FN youth.

Oh meadow muffins! I understand the root causes of this rioting well enough and I also have a much better understanding of FN issues than you do.

What impact does ruining their own neighbourhoods by riot have on 'the rich'? Would the impact not be much greater and more effective if the victims of systemic racism, denial of opportunity and general belittling in these communities burned out 'the rich', rather than allowing 'the rich' to watch from a safe distance while they burn themselves out of house and home?

Tweeting up a flash mob and burning out the toffs on Belgrave Square sound like a much more efficient method of getting the message across than burning out the local greengrocer.

How would the French Revolution have turned out if the mob had fought each other to budge the guillotine line while the toffs watched on TV?

this raises an interesting question. When the rich attack us, it is in our homes and our communities.

why the hell when we protest do we do it in a public space like a downtown area, etc. Why not go to the rich neighborhoods and protest to the actual people who are committing this violence instead of protesting to their infrastructure?

perhaps if we disrupted their actual lives and communities in the same way they disrupt ours, it might be a more effective and direct message?

It would be interesting to know from history, all those kings and dictators that were thrown from power, just when they lost that sense of permanance and security.

I bet for most, it was days or at most just weeks before they fell from power.

They really don't see it coming.

Yes and in most cases it was an organized ARMY that removed them in the end. Now more than ever you need the military and law enforcment to do one of two things: join you or stand by and let it happen.

The French revolution worked because most of the military with the lower ranking officer corps went over to the people; same with Russia... Castro and his men was an organized army, not a mob when they took Cuba. The (US trained officers) of the Egyptian military stood by after distancing themselves from the falling regime and ensured they would still have power. The Soviet era trained officers were with the old guard and lost out. (Anybody here notice that?) The regimes in Syria, Yeman and Libya are safe as long as they can control their militaries.

I also wonder if Roscoe knows who he's talking to. At any rate, I judge people by the wors they write, not by the certificates they make out to themselves.

Ah yes, I do notice your haste to judge, Catchfire. I also notice you do not even bother to determine who you are talking to. I doubt additional decades hiding from reality in the cloistered halls of graduate school will dislodge that condescending hastiness.

Perhaps such haste precludes more rational suppositions such as: does Roscoe's assertion of familiarity with FN issues have merit? But no, of course not. Simple 'progressive' arrogance that an educated worthy such as yourself can determine a person's bonafides based on nothing more than your own biases is enough.

<s>Why its simply ludicrous, ludicrous I say, to suppose that any individual who challenges the diktates of babble progressives on how FN should think, feel and react could actually know of which they speak. </s>

Is it no wonder than aboriginals have no interest in this forum? Any attempt by an aboriginal individual to speak out is met be a barrage of 'progressive' white folks or their acolytes telling that individual how they should feel, react and think.

this raises an interesting question. When the rich attack us, it is in our homes and our communities.

why the hell when we protest do we do it in a public space like a downtown area, etc. Why not go to the rich neighborhoods and protest to the actual people who are committing this violence instead of protesting to their infrastructure?

perhaps if we disrupted their actual lives and communities in the same way they disrupt ours, it might be a more effective and direct message?

It would be interesting to know from history, all those kings and dictators that were thrown from power, just when they lost that sense of permanance and security.

I bet for most, it was days or at most just weeks before they fell from power.

They really don't see it coming.

Yes and in most cases it was an organized ARMY that removed them in the end. Now more than ever you need the military and law enforcment to do one of two things: join you or stand by and let it happen.

The French revolution worked because most of the military with the lower ranking officer corps went over to the people; same with Russia... Castro and his men was an organized army, not a mob when they took Cuba. The (US trained officers) of the Egyptian military stood by after distancing themselves from the falling regime and ensured they would still have power. The Soviet era trained officers were with the old guard and lost out. (Anybody here notice that?) The regimes in Syria, Yeman and Libya are safe as long as they can control their militaries.

So, what is the catalyst that makes the military cast off control by the fascists? Or, more aptly, what is the point at which self-interest overcomes the need to conform to their leaders' orders? It obviously isn't moral persuasion.

In the case of Britain, would the police show the same restraint if the yobs were looting and burning in Belgrave Square as they did in Tottenham? Or can one compare British riots with popular uprisings against tyranny?

Ah yes, I do notice your haste to judge, Catchfire. I also notice you do not even bother to determine who you are talking to. I doubt additional decades hiding from reality in the cloistered halls of graduate school will dislodge that condescending hastiness.

Arrogant much? You immediately dismissed another FN's poster and claimed you were superior in your knowledge to them. And then you whine about how FN's might not feel comfortable. Well try looking in your mirror for your answer.

Strange how only you have the privilege of being condescending. Did you get a permit for that or is it just your inherent traits that make you so much better than anyone else?

The Tory multimillionaires are not bothered. They have their own priorities, led by the obsession with slashing public expenditure and slimming down the state.

They have no truck with the previous consensus on policing by consent, preferring to see a smaller police force acting as an occupation army in troublesome poor communities while wealthy areas and gated communities rely on cheaper and less professional security companies to defend their property against outsiders.

The Tory multimillionaires are not bothered. They have their own priorities, led by the obsession with slashing public expenditure and slimming down the state.

They have no truck with the previous consensus on policing by consent, preferring to see a smaller police force acting as an occupation army in troublesome poor communities while wealthy areas and gated communities rely on cheaper and less professional security companies to defend their property against outsiders.

I don't think the rich, (and I mean those rich enough to have power and political connections), are worried about personal safety. What really frightens them is loss of profits. Riots are bad for business. They like stability and sustained cash flow. Remember the Henry Ford quote, "It is well enough that the people of this country do not understand the banking and monetary system. For I believe that if they did, we'd have a revolution before tomorrow morning."

I don't think the rich, (and I mean those rich enough to have power and political connections), are worried about personal safety. What really frightens them is loss of profits. Riots are bad for business. They like stability and sustained cash flow. Remember the Henry Ford quote, "It is well enough that the people of this country do not understand the banking and monetary system. For I believe that if they did, we'd have a revolution before tomorrow morning."

I dunno, did you catch the looks on Charles and Camilla's faces when they were driven through a demonstration on the way to the opera? The average person understands enough about the banking and monetary system to realise that it only works for the wealthy. The socialisation of risk in past couple of years will cost everyone but the rich dearly.

Marginalised individuals have no employment income or pensions to lose. The rich have disposable income and the political connections to socialise their 'losses' but the middle class is in danger of disappearing. How will this turn out in western societies? Will the rich and powerful isolate themselves from the reast like in many emerging economies or will the people throw the bums out by turning to socialist parties?

If so, is it even possible for a socialist government to turn economies around by socialising the means of production and forcing the rich to return their ill gotten gains?

If so, is it even possible for a socialist government to turn economies around by socialising the means of production and forcing the rich to return their ill gotten gains?

Greece and Spain both have governments that are nominally socialist and ran from the centre left. They are in lock step with the right wing governments like Cameron's both are following the bankers orders to impose austerity measures. It would be a pleasant surprise to see them just saying no to austerity measures and letting the capitalists' chips fall where they may in that casino game they call a market.

Its always better to throw off the chains. The debts their economies are being saddled with will never get paid off. They will be in perpetual debt to corrupt bankers. IMO the new will never rise out of that scenario only more chaos and violence.

Northern, what I am wondering is if in some cases their governments are not chained as well and that the global economic system is the one supplying the chains and their governments are in fact victims as well. Is it possible that the strengthening of some of those governments could be more empowering than their weakening.

I am not claiming to know but it is convenient to see trust in the national government decline while those holding the real power only accumulate more over their societies.

But do their governments have a realistic choice in standing up to global forces at the moment or would that only cause more suffering for those people? Is it possible some are unhappy about this but doing it because they believe not doing it would cause more suffering -- choosing to pick their battles and find another time?

Something is very off when democratically elected governments have become nothing more than middle management.

There is going to be pain and suffering either way. First, weak sisters get picked off: Greece, Ireland, Portugal and then, the vultures keep moving on. Britain is a good candidate. So is the US, whose people will be beggared via inflation to feed the debt monster - by their own government.

The bright spot in the global attempt at theft by socialising risk is Iceland. Even though Iceland's government was willing to cave into the British and Dutch coersion for iceland to socialise Euro investor losses, the Icelandic people told them to stuff it and, Iceland is doing quite well now.

I say it is better to protect one's country and its people by letting the banksters go pound salt. Any country like Canada with a bounty of resources will not suffer long.

Short term pain for long term gain. The German people seem to think so too ( although their elites are eager to throw them to the wolves).

If so, is it even possible for a socialist government to turn economies around by socialising the means of production and forcing the rich to return their ill gotten gains?

Greece and Spain both have governments that are nominally socialist and ran from the centre left. They are in lock step with the right wing governments like Cameron's both are following the bankers orders to impose austerity measures. It would be a pleasant surprise to see them just saying no to austerity measures and letting the capitalists' chips fall where they may in that casino game they call a market.

Its not just austerity measures. What is really insidious for Canada is the tendency toward greenwashing of electrical energy that rewards the global banksters with ever increasing profits from privatising power supply in exchange for giving spineless governments like those in Ontario and BC an immediate and illusory political credit for 'doing something' about the environment.

Take a close look at both BC Hydro's frightening Independent Power Producer Agreements and Ontario's foolish dependence on Samsung's photovoltaic technology. Both of these deals give access to socialising risk and a legislated death grip on exponential increases in power rates. In future, long after McGuilty and Clark have faded into infamy and any illusory political gain faded into memory, consumers without discretionary income to absorb quadrupling or more of power rates will be forced to choose between heat and food.

I'm constantly amazed that this privatisation of public wealth flies below the left's radar while leftist worthies endlessly debate how many leftist ideals can fit on the head of a pin.

So, what is the catalyst that makes the military cast off control by the fascists? Or, more aptly, what is the point at which self-interest overcomes the need to conform to their leaders' orders? It obviously isn't moral persuasion.

Ah yes, I do notice your haste to judge, Catchfire. I also notice you do not even bother to determine who you are talking to. I doubt additional decades hiding from reality in the cloistered halls of graduate school will dislodge that condescending hastiness.

Arrogant much? You immediately dismissed another FN's poster and claimed you were superior in your knowledge to them. And then you whine about how FN's might not feel comfortable. Well try looking in your mirror for your answer.

Strange how only you have the privilege of being condescending. Did you get a permit for that or is it just your inherent traits that make you so much better than anyone else?

Go stalk someone else. I don't even read your drive-bys.

Maybe catchfire thinks it ok because you put a kissyface on your personal attacks.

Roscoe, you have absolutely no idea of what systemic racism, denial of opportunity and general belitteling can do to a community, especially their youth. For many FN communities in Canada it comes down to fighting gang influence, substance abuse and/or suicide. I'd rather see riots than what we see with FN youth.

Interesting kerfuffle. What gives you the right to unilaterally decide that I "have absolutely no idea".

So, what is the catalyst that makes the military cast off control by the fascists? Or, more aptly, what is the point at which self-interest overcomes the need to conform to their leaders' orders? It obviously isn't moral persuasion.

How do you know this? Have you ever been in this situation before?

No, I haven't. I'm thinking of the individuals in a fascist organisation ( Libya, Syria) that carry out whatever despicable acts are ordered without challenge until "the moment that the fascist leadership does not see coming arrives". Then, they switch sides or surrender out of self-interest, not moral persuasion.

So, other than the threat of violence, what pressures can be brought to bear on these individuals to hasten the fascists' downfall? I note that Libya's Interior Minister has made this decision recently.

Roscoe, you have absolutely no idea of what systemic racism, denial of opportunity and general belitteling can do to a community, especially their youth. For many FN communities in Canada it comes down to fighting gang influence, substance abuse and/or suicide. I'd rather see riots than what we see with FN youth.

Interesting kerfuffle. What gives you the right to unilaterally decide that I "have absolutely no idea".

Hardly a "unilateral" decision - your lack of knowledge shows in your posts - in their inaccuracy and in your considerable arrogance in presuming to know better than others who have a demonstrated (not blabbed about, but actually shown) knowledge and experience with the issues.

And attacking Catchfire on the basis of his position in academia shows the kind of intellectual bigotry, celebrating ignorance in favour of education, that is the hallmark of the far right. Doesn't exactly bolster your position, which is ... what exactly IS your position here on these progressive boards?

Roscoe, I think that the nationalizing of risk (or should we just come out and say it -- nationalizing of loss) often looks like national control when it is the opposite.

Smart right wingers have long ago learned that the best way to defeat the left is to damage the government's ability to do anything. Years ago they understood that cutting taxes would help disable collective action but more recently the attempts to cripple the government have been more sophisticated.

In Canada, massive military spending and unneeded crime agenda spending together with wasteful stimulus spending (much on not needed things while core infrastructure was often ignored) helped strip the government of any money to be active in the economy. Together with tax reduction the process is complete. It is very important to watch the right wing for wasting public money-- not just because their priorities are wrong but because the wasting of money could be an objective in itself.

This is because they have little interest in the collective finance of government and a great interest in setting conditions for government 'non interference' in the market economy. If that means flushing away a lot of money leaving no room left for all those things they do not believe in, the population should not assume it is all accident.

It is interesting to note that the government padded defence spending massively, even after saying it would soon reign in spending. It can reverse a small amount of that to pretend that the defence department is doing its bit. And it is-- the defence department has done more than its share already-- its job was to help create the context for the government to say it could not afford what people want government to do. In other words the defence department has the job of making money disappear from government finances.

It is critical that people do not assume that the right wing governments waste more money than centre and left governments because they are less competent. The important distinction is they have no interest in governments having balanced budgets and the capacity to spend. Many hate government and when trusted with it use that trust to break it down. F35 jets have a dual purpose-- their first bombing run is on the government's ability to do the kinds of things right wing politicians want it not to do.

Once people understand this dynamic they have a chance at understanding our political process. For some, realizing right wingers don't screw up the nation's finances because they are stupid comes as a dawning realization of just how much we have been had.

The acknowledgment that the rich are getting massively richer right through this ongoing economic crisis/adjustment is a realization that is painful but essential.

Some people say offensive things out of misplaced anger and frustration and lack of knowledge of others-- even to the point of attacking people who are more similar to them than they realize. It is important to distinguish between these people and those who well understand all that is going on and are motivated by a vile ideology and greed. When we make this distinction we can try to influence rather than alienate.

There is often hope of turning a person we have had conflict in to an ally rather than an enemy if we try. Charges of arrogance and bigotry can be effective but they can also be wrong.-- It could be a form of frustrated blindness rather than arrogance and anger/resentment/envy in place of bigotry. I have had misplaced anger of my own, frustration, envy, resentment over opportunities I have felt I have been denied. I work with it and try to check myself and I get it right sometimes. Let's not drive away people by feeding their anger when we could feed their understanding as they could ours.

It is okay to angry about an ignorant comment or personal attack but there is no evidence that Roscoe is the enemy here. Seems in fact clear to me that he/she isn't. And we don't need to make him in to an enemy when we already have enough. And Roscoe, most people here are not your enemy either but the approach can mess things up (my 3.5 cents....).